Bill really nailed this one.

[turtlespeed 212]

I am finding myself liking this guy more and more.

 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

He is funny. He nailed some of the jokes. I am sure there are indeed some fine people on the other side who will use this to justify their thoughts and behaviours.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

He is funny. He nailed some of the jokes. I am sure there are indeed some fine people on the other side who will use this to justify their thoughts and behaviours.

Like what - finding white people that are more offended that they are white to be utterly ridiculous?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Like what - finding white people that are more offended that they are white to be utterly ridiculous?

If that is what you think those fine people on the other side think.

[turtlespeed 212]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

If that is what you think those fine people on the other side think.

What other side? We are discussing the white people that Bill mentioned in his video.  I don't know what other conversation you are having.

[olofscience 420]

11 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

What other side? We are discussing the white people that Bill mentioned in his video.  I don't know what other conversation you are having.

Yeah, that was funny.

However, while you're focusing your outrage on those white liberals and raging against those who "try to change culture" (like HBO deciding to temporarily pull Gone With The Wind completely voluntarily), is there anything being done for reducing police abuse against black people?

You see, raging against these arguably extreme white liberals is changing the topic of conversation. And that's what the racists want. They don't want to talk about the original issues.

Edited June 24, 2020 by olofscience

[SkyDekker 1,121]

57 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

What other side? We are discussing the white people that Bill mentioned in his video.  I don't know what other conversation you are having.

Exactly. The fact you aren't getting that is telling enough and exactly what I was talking about....

[airdvr 197]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

You see, raging against these arguably extreme white liberals is changing the topic of conversation. And that's what the racists want. They don't want to talk about the original issues.

That's because it's been talked to death. I'm not seeing anyone "raging" about white liberals.  Changes are being made but no one has yet figured out how to maintain order without laws, and law enforcement presence.  Meanwhile CHOP throws out an absolutely ridiculous list of demand that don't have a chance in hell of working.  Might as well throw GND in the mix for all the chance it has of happening.

Mahre hit on an angle few talk about.  Like most of these bits it's funny because it's true.  But I also think people are taken advantage of because of it.

[olofscience 420]

14 minutes ago, airdvr said:

That's because it's been talked to death. I'm not seeing anyone "raging" about white liberals.

1) No, if the problem hasn't been fixed then it needs to be the topic to focus on. Just in case you forgot, it's about law enforcement abuse and murder of minorities.

2) This entire thread is about those stupid white liberals.

[airdvr 197]

OK...tell me how you fix it.

[wmw999 2,117]

Camden NJ apparently has re-made their police force; crime is down, solving is up. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

Wendy P.

[olofscience 420]

43 minutes ago, airdvr said:

OK...tell me how you fix it.

Get rid of militarized equipment from police departments.

Divert some funds from police to social support - mental health, community services, etc.

Establish independent bodies that have the power to investigate the police so that it's not just the police investigating themselves.

And that's just what I could think of in a few minutes, I'm sure better ideas are out there. But have you stopped listening?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

OK...tell me how you fix it.

Stop thinking you are the best at everything and the whole world wants to be like you....and start learning from other countries.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

OK...tell me how you fix it.

The same way you fix any other employees failing to do their work correctly. You hold them accountable.

[airdvr 197]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Get rid of militarized equipment from police departments.

Divert some funds from police to social support - mental health, community services, etc.

Establish independent bodies that have the power to investigate the police so that it's not just the police investigating themselves.

And that's just what I could think of in a few minutes, I'm sure better ideas are out there. But have you stopped listening?

All good possibilities.  However, that's not what is being demanded. How do you balance the two?

[billvon 2,384]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

OK...tell me how you fix it.

Make the first responders unarmed cops who have more training in de-escalation than in armed response.  Make those the better paying jobs so that they are sought after by the people with skill in that area.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

That's because it's been talked to death. I'm not seeing anyone "raging" about white liberals.  Changes are being made but no one has yet figured out how to maintain order without laws, and law enforcement presence.  Meanwhile CHOP throws out an absolutely ridiculous list of demand that don't have a chance in hell of working.  Might as well throw GND in the mix for all the chance it has of happening.

Mahre hit on an angle few talk about.  Like most of these bits it's funny because it's true.  But I also think people are taken advantage of because of it.

That list of demands had some pretty serious segregation in it.

And the raging?

If this is raging at the Baizuo . . . then count me in.

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

OK...tell me how you fix it.

Well, a good start would be to require bodycams with audio on ALL cops. Make turning it off a firing offense. And one that revokes the qualified immunity (see my next point). 

Another good start would be to revoke the qualified immunity for any action that goes against department policy or regulation.
For example, the cops on the scene at the McDonald shooting in Chicago falsified reports, changed witness statements and destroyed video from a nearby Burger King.
Those actions should end up with the officers becoming personally liable. 

If the cops knew that they could be held personally responsible for what happened if they violate the rules, I would think the rules would be violated less.

[mistercwood 287]

25 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, a good start would be to require bodycams with audio on ALL cops. Make turning it off a firing offense. And one that revokes the qualified immunity (see my next point). 

One of the issues I have with this solution is that tech mishaps DO happen, so I don't like the idea of a firing just because of equipment failure. The solution I read of that seems best to straddle the line is that if the cam is off for any interaction that leads to potential charges, the officers testimony becomes inadmissible.

[normiss 620]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

All good possibilities.  However, that's not what is being demanded. How do you balance the two?

That's pretty much exactly what i being demanded, along with a few more issues concerning police actions.

Like barring choke holds and declaring lynchings a federal hate crime. I still don't understand why those and the body cam requirement are meeting resistance.

[airdvr 197]

53 minutes ago, normiss said:

That's pretty much exactly what i being demanded, along with a few more issues concerning police actions.

Like barring choke holds and declaring lynchings a federal hate crime. I still don't understand why those and the body cam requirement are meeting resistance.

If you watch the Rayshard video it becomes pretty clear he could have been subdued with a chokehold.  I don't think you can completely disarm LE.  A simple chokehold would have ended the scuffle.  Question is, when is the chokehold deadly?

[billvon 2,384]

4 minutes ago, airdvr said:

If you watch the Rayshard video it becomes pretty clear he could have been subdued with a chokehold.  I don't think you can completely disarm LE. 

Agreed.  But a police force whose first response is unarmed (or armed with, say, tasers) will go a long way towards making sure that the first response is not a lethal one.

 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

39 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Question is, when is the chokehold deadly?

When the police unions make officers believe they are immune from prosecution. airdvr, you need to look deeper into things. No one wants to have a fully neutered police force. Most folks want a smart, well qualified, well paid but smaller and demilitarized force. Unfortunately the "we can never give an inch lest the commie abortionist welfare queens who want to end Christmas" conservative faction, as always, don't want to give an inch.

Edited June 25, 2020 by JoeWeber

[normiss 620]

23 minutes ago, airdvr said:

If you watch the Rayshard video it becomes pretty clear he could have been subdued with a chokehold.  I don't think you can completely disarm LE.  A simple chokehold would have ended the scuffle.  Question is, when is the chokehold deadly?

When used repeatedly until the victim is dead should at least deserve some consideration. More so when a physical interaction was entirely uncalled for in the first place.

What 911 center responds to calls with the initial question "Is he black?".

To me, he seemed confused but not intoxicated. Fully cooperated.

He's then asked to walk a line that doesn't exist. Yet is does have an unstraight crack in the pavement along his path.

Fully honest and open with the officers.

Seems he is trying to understand his rights and whether or not to take a breathalyzer. Whic can easily be incriminating and why a lawyer typically advises you to not take, especially if you have been drink at all any time within the day.

On probation, so he wants no part of a police interaction. THIS is where he changes his thinking.

A black man, on probation. He's fucked in most places right here. The interaction alone, without any charges or consequence, can cost him dearly on the probation requirements.

Depending on the jurisdiction, the minimal over the limit blow on the test, he could have received a minor citation and driven home if he left his car there. Which to some cops makes it a judgement call. IMO, he wasn't "drunk". He was fully interacting, direct, honest, eye contact, no slurring, no stumbling, no risk to anyone it would appear. Even addressed the officers by NAME. Fully aware.

As soon as 2 cops take his hands, he flipping panics. This is where killed while being black comes in to play IMO.

I don't personally understand or know this fear. I have friends that do. I at least can understand it.

They had his ID, they knew who he was, knew he was on probation, and could have easily located and taken him into custody.

Why did they need to kill him? He was no threat to them in any way when he was shot in the back and murdered.

Most of the techniques cops use for restraint, work against the body. The body responds. It's not resisting when the natural human response is always to stop the pain the technique is causing. What it is, is the first charge of resisting arrest and justification of murder.

3 shots. In the back. Running away. With a useless piece of plastic. Taken from a clueless cop who doesn't understand how he just used his weapons.

 

Anyway. Chokeholds should not be used either.

 

 

[olofscience 420]

7 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, a good start would be to require bodycams with audio on ALL cops. Make turning it off a firing offense. And one that revokes the qualified immunity (see my next point). 

Another good start would be to revoke the qualified immunity for any action that goes against department policy or regulation.
For example, the cops on the scene at the McDonald shooting in Chicago falsified reports, changed witness statements and destroyed video from a nearby Burger King.
Those actions should end up with the officers becoming personally liable. 

If the cops knew that they could be held personally responsible for what happened if they violate the rules, I would think the rules would be violated less.

I'm all for technological solutions, but until someone investigates the police who are not the police, this would limit the effectiveness.

In the UK we have the IPCC - Independent Police Complaints Commission that handles any cases of alleged police misconduct. A body like them would be in charge of handling evidence from bodycams, getting witness statements, etc, because you simply can't trust the police department to do that to their own. They're too close to the cases.

As the Romans said, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"